September 8, 2012
Statutory Rape a Non-Issue?: Think Again
by Jeswan Kaur(09-07-12) @http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com
It’s confirmed that the two judicial experts who found statutory rape of two minors a non-issue need help in understanding what rape is – or else they will go on delivering reproachful judgments in favour of rapists.
On August 28, Sessions Court judge Nisa Abdul Aziz released a 22-year-old electrician Chuah Guan Jiu (left) on “good behaviour” after he was convicted of raping his then 12-year-old girlfriend twice last year.
Chuah was instead bound over for three years on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond. He had committed the crime at his flat in Jalan Ru 1, Air Itam on July 18 and 19.
The offence under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years’ jail and whipping.But Nisa decided that since the sexual act was consensual between Chuah and the victim and that he had not tricked her into the act, no “rape” had taken place.
Nisa made the perpetrator’s future her priority, not the fact that he had tricked his minor partner into having sex with him; the facts of the case stated that Chuah had persuaded the victim to skip school and follow him to his home, which then led to the offence being committed.
So the judge thought best that Chuah be bound over for three years on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond.
A shame that the judge failed to understand the psyche of a rapist who not once but twice raped his schoolgoing girlfriend. Worse still, Nisa made the probation report her “bible” in stating that Chuah did not have a prior criminal record and was a Form Two school drop-out.
What is even more shocking is that Nisa, like her predecessor, Court of Appeal President Raus Shariff, displayed her ignorance on what constitutes statutory rape and that Malaysia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 2009.
According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child – Implementation Handbook for the CRC, a girl under the age of 18 is a minor and is not in a position to give informed consent.
The second-highest ranking judge in the country, Raus had opted to show
concern for perpetrator Noor Afizal Azizan’s “bright future” in setting aside the five-year jail term imposed on the national bowler by the Malacca High Court, and instead binding him over for good behaviour.
Nor Afizal, then 19, was charged with raping his 13-year-old girlfriend at a hotel in 2010.
A tragedy that Nisa and Raus have not only failed to uphold justice but they have also downplayed the crime of statutory rape, claiming, on the contrary, that consensual sex between a minor and an adult is “permissible” under the law.
Nightmare for the parents
By siding with the rapists, both Nisa and Raus have decided that the welfare of the rape survivors is none of their business and that irrespective of their ages, rape survivors are “party” to rape.
When Raus’s judgment created a public uproar, all he did in trying to clarify his decision was to say that despite being let off on a personal bond of RM25,000 for good behaviour, public interest had been served as Nor Afizal had been convicted and the offence recorded.
Raus’ clarification comes as a nightmare to the parents of the young girls. What do we make of such senarios – a rapist is allowed to roam about freely simply because the judge was impressed with his “credentials” or because the rapist is too young to do jail time?
Are Raus and Nisa willing to take all the blame if both Nor Afizal and Chuah were to commit more rapes?Also, since when has the perpetrator’s age and “bright future” become a concern of the courts in crimes as traumatising as rape?
What Nisa and Raus have done is a travesty of justice, a blunder so serious that it has left the rakyat wondering whether justice is still alive or long dead in this country of 28 million people.
In these two cases, the injustice done to the rape survivors begs that “remedial” actions be taken to ensure judges stop being biased when dealing with rape cases; it is imperative too that judges stop finding faults with the rape survivors and no longer depict them as “guilty”.
Are Raus and Nisa aware that in statutory rape which is also known as sexual 
assault or rape of a child or corruption of a minor or carnal knowledge of minor, overt force or threat need not be present as the law presumes coercion as the minor is legally incapable of saying “aye” to the act?
If judges keep reflecting their ignorance on cases that have devastating impact on the victims, where does that leave the ordinary rakyat out to seek justice from the courts?
Should justice continue to evade those who knock at its doorstep, the day will not be far when the nation mourns tragedies seen only in Hollywood or Bollywood movies.
When we get judges like Nisa and Raus, you know beyond any reasonable doubt that our Judiciary is kaput. Get it. It is going to take ages before this damage can be repaired. How these judges got their law degrees never ceases to dazzle me. The key words are “statutory rape”. Consensual sex does not apply to under aged girls. Both these young studs should be castrated and sent to the Palace of Chinese rulers to become eunuchs. Acha hei, gum, gum, shaboom.
Wonder what would their reactions be if another judge were to deliver the same judgements if their daughters were statutorily raped???? My guess is they would be hopping mad !!!!
____________
How can they be hopping mad when they are rather devoid of reason and legal logic.They should be removed from the bench. I wonder what our Chief Justice is doing.–Din Merican
I wonder if the judges’ daughters get rape at that age, what would they do then? Throw a party for the rapist?
I have noticed the difference between 2 countries separated from the causeway. Yes, high flying officials in Singapore committed sex acts amounting to corruption charges. Notice the differences. These Singapore officials were immediately suspended & mostly like sacked by now. Even one high ranking officer in the foreign office has been sacked because of his reckless over claim on certain claims.
Since our most Augustinian judges find it difficult to define ‘statutory rape’ based on chronological age, methinks a more appropriate ‘scientific’ method is to allow them to count the number of pubic hair follicles (barring certain medical causes of ‘universal’ baldness) of the victim. That will make them very happy. We may also like to include the Syariah court officials, so that we have a ‘level playing’ field.
Hmm.., i would also record my utmost appreciation to the pug-nosed AG Chambers for issuing a strongly worded statement wrt to this issue. The hypocrisy is absolutely mind boggling.
Moral decadence used to be a monopoly of western countries. Not anymore. Malaysia has topped the list as the most liberal and morally decadent. We can expect pedophiles to make a beeline to Malaysia next summer when news spreads that it is ok to have sex with a minor so long as she consents. Thailand can expect stiff competition from Muslim Malaysia. Sex with minor is a new industry and is set to be a major foreign exchange earner for Malaysia in years to come.
___________
The Malaysian Tourism officials should be happy. I recommend that they use this tagline, “Malaysia–A Pedophile’s Paradise”,instead of “Malaysia Truly Asia”. What do you think, Bean? –Din Merican
Sex with minors is OK. But sodomy among consenting adults and heterosexuals is wrong in law. Oral sex is an act against nature. Something is wrong with this picture.
“think again”.
who says they are?
They have a Judicial Academy in Malaysia. So , they better start teaching their Judges about Statutory rapes.
Don’t these judges know that teenagers/children can’t make informed decisions? So I take it they won’t take it seriously if their minor daughters/sons have consensual sex with adults?
Now they just need to give the same sentence to an Indian and One Malaysia will be comolete.
First year law students doing criminal law know that the ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ of the crime will have to be present before an act becomes a crime. Rape is sexual penetration without consent and is common law based. Sexual penetration is the act i.e. the actus reus in Latin. A slight penetration is still penetration. Just like in burglary, there must be a break-in with intent to commit a crime. Just your finger pushing a window open or your toe pushing the door is considered a break-in. Nothing needs to be broken. Kapish so far? Follow me? Judges?! Good.
Then there is another kind of rape which is not common law based but is statutory i.e. created by statutes. Kapish? Now you judges as retarded as you may be, surely you have been sitting on the Bench and on your cojones long enough to know that statutory rape is a strict liabiity offence. The only defence the accused has here is that he did not put his toe in nor his finger in and he does not need to break anything in the process. Like the burglar in the night would have to for there to be a burglary. You don’t need to be able to read lips either to find if she is saying yes or no or maybe. Just the act.
What?? It goes to mitigation? Consent goes to mitigation? Now read my lips. Consent is not an issue. If you still don’t understand, then perhaps the bloghost should let loose Goolbuttock Singh to demonstrate when consent is an issue.
“Acha hei, gum, gum, shaboom.” — Gurubachan Singh
Whaat? You need a gum sucking boom boom girl?? Sex with an underaged girl is a strict liability offence. It is not a defense to say she looks as old as your grandmother. Or that you’re able to read lips.
Absolutely rubbish wrt to their Convoluted thinking or ‘ reasonings ‘ , less than infantile to say the least : it appears as if they think statutory rape is less serious to ordinary rape without comsent. Actually it is MORE serious than Rape, which itself is already abhorent !
If that is the ‘logic’ of the ( Dis ) Honourable Court, it is sending a wrong signal to society at large, bcoz they think they can get away with a slap on the wrist where Minors are concerned.
But what’s the philosophy of more stringent protection as far as minors are concerned ? If ‘ wolves ‘ are on the prowl because of leniency by the Court, imagine large numbers of female Children far below 12 down 7 or 8 year-old kids getting pregnant AND BECOMING ‘ Mothers ” who have not even begun to learn their own physiology, let alone about bearing children ?
All because of ” Consent ” ? Rubbish ! Poor lttle girls & toddlers becoming ” Mothers “, don’t the idiots have feelings & compassion ?
“Don’t these judges know that teenagers/children can’t make informed decisions?” — didi
So if you provide these minors with the information they need to know before they have sex and they sign their consent papers it is not rape? WTF ?
Thus the question need to be answered , if ever that “toe” does really touch the ‘window’ or just perhaps only ‘window dressing’..?? To prove beyond unreasonable doubt..?? while the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors evidences produced in court…??
”Moral decadence used to be a monopoly of western countries”. – Mr. Bean
the laws in the West are liberal because of this, if not half the population will be spending time inside, at the cost of taxpayers. But the rest of the world is no angel, they are also ‘liberal’ where paedophilia and rape by relatives are concerned, tolerated and protected by customs and traditions. the real statistics(?) on this in Malaysia or India would be equal to that of the West or higher.
this could be a video by some ultra rightwing group.
Oi Selvarajoo,
Rape is sexual penetration without consent. Penetration by foreign objects is still rape – and Wisma Putra has nothing to do with it. By all means talk cock.
In statutory rape ‘mens rea’ of the offence is not relevant. Just the ‘actus reus’. Whaat?? The guy is drunk? His state of mind? He didn’t know what he was doing? Whether he was coming or going? He thought she was his boss’s wife? None of the above is a defense. This is an open and shut case.
Selvarajoo,
For there to be a burglary there must first be a break-in. In the case of a burglary, the mens rea is intent to commit a felony once he is in. If even only a tiny fraction of his finger goes passed the window pane it is enough to satisfy the definition of breaking in. And nothing has to be broken. Kapish? The same with his toe.